Negligence- Africa et. al Vs. Caltex Phils PDF

Preview

Summary

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence...

Description

Case Title: Africa et,al Vs. Caltex (Phil) Inc. et. al Petitioner: THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA and SOLEDAD C. AFRICA, and the HEIRS OF DOMINGA ONG FACTS -

Topic: Negligence G.R. L-12986 (1966) Respondents: CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., MATEO BOQUIREN and THE COURT OF APPEALS

In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo St. and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, right at the opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several houses. The owners, among them petitioner spouses Africa and heirs of Ong, sued respondents Caltex Phil., Inc., the alleged owner of the station, and Mateo Boquiren, the agent in charge of its operation, for damages. The CFI and CA found that the petitioners failed to prove negligence of the respondents, and that there was due care in the premises and with respect to the supervision of their employees.

ISSUES 1.

W/N Caltex be held liable for the damages caused to appellants

RULING (1)  Yes. This question depends on whether the operator of the gasoline station was an independent contractor or

an agent of Caltex. Under the license agreement the operator would pay Caltex the purely nominal sum of P1.00 for the use of the premises and all equipment therein. The operator could sell only Caltex products. Maintenance of the station and its equipment was subject to the approval, in other words control, of Caltex. The operator could not assign or transfer his rights as licensee without the consent of Caltex. Termination of the contract was a right granted only to Caltex but not to the operator. These provisions of the contract show that the operator was virtually an employee of the Caltex, not an independent contractor. Hence, Caltex should be liable for damages caused to appellants. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. The gasoline-station, with all its appliances, equipment and employees, was under the control of appellees. A fire occurred therein and spread to and burned the neighboring houses. The person who knew or could have known how the fire started were the appellees and their employees, but they gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a fair and reasonable inference that the incident happened because of want of care.

RATIONALE Res ipsa loquitur literally means “the thing or transaction speaks for itself.” For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, the following requisites should be present: (a) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated....